BULLS DRAFT TALK: 17 DAYS.

[JimmyBulls]

Yep, and they called Lopez a soft jumpshooting big after his freshman season.

If you think Matta had legs to stand on platooning Mullens with Lauderdale, just look at Lauderdale's production. Thad Matta was clearly trying to keep Mullens in school. I think it's safe to say that anything else is simply trying to re-invent history.

Mullens is not the perfect prospect, but he's a very interesting prospect for a player that should be there at 16.

I think a lot of the people that's against Mullens would've been against Kaman and Lopez as freshman as well. Hell, I thought the Bulls should've offered the Bobcats Thomas for their 8th pick to draft Lopez. There was more than a few people that thought I was flat out out of my mind. They said "Lopez has bust written all over him, I would never trade Thomas for him."

 

[jsain360]

Simeon2UC wrote:

Danny Green reminds me of Bobby Simmons. He just camp out and shoot beyond the arc. He never seen him take someone off the dribble. He can't create his own shot. He doesn't create fouls by taking plays off the dribble, and he doesn't know how to create fouls with pump fakes. Green also has poor cutting skills and can be inconsistently prone. He was a role player in college, and at best in the NBA, you'll see him as the 3rd option. He'll be attractive in the second round.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqRmNkygo7k

Seriously?

I don't expect much out of Danny green either, he is a second rounder, he reminds me of Chris Carrawell, if any one is looking for that draft sleeper, I think it could be USC's Taj Gibson he measured around 6-9, 6-10 w/ shoes, taller than I expected, he will be a solid pro if you're looking for rebounding and shot blocking

 

[jsain360]

If the Bulls take Mullens, they really need to hire a big man's coach, during the season Pete Myers was coaching the big men, if any one seen Pete play, knows he shouldn't be allowed to teach post play. Gar and VDN get a big man's caoch, Derrick Coleman needs a job, Terry Cummings is out there, Shawn Kemp, anybody but Pete Myers working with the big men

 

[rbk88]

JimmyBulls wrote:

Yep, and they called Lopez a soft jumpshooting big after his freshman season.

If you think Matta had legs to stand on platooning Mullens with Lauderdale, just look at Lauderdale's production. Thad Matta was clearly trying to keep Mullens in school. I think it's safe to say that anything else is simply trying to re-invent history.

Mullens is not the perfect prospect, but he's a very interesting prospect for a player that should be there at 16.

I think a lot of the people that's against Mullens would've been against Kaman and Lopez as freshman as well. Hell, I thought the Bulls should've offered the Bobcats Thomas for their 8th pick to draft Lopez. There was more than a few people that thought I was flat out out of my mind. They said "Lopez has bust written all over him, I would never trade Thomas for him."

I'm just not buying it. Do you really think Matta would have kept Oden or Kofous on the bench on a mediocre OSU team? William Buford also started as a true freshman this year. Mullens just strikes me as someone who is extremely lazy based on the scouting reports and his pathetic rebounding numbers for someone who was always the biggest guy on the court.

 

[JimmyBulls]

Oden and Koufos were the players that lead to Matta opting to hide Mullens. I am sure Matta assumed that the media would never accuse him of having less than ethical intentions, but a lot of people who followed the Buckeyes' season understood, and witnessed Matta's underhanded tactic. Believe it or not.

People tend to go to the normal talking points when they're looking at a young big. They talk about effort, and accuse guys of dogging it and not playing hard. It's said about almost any 7 footer that didn't dominanted on the college level. This is the same crap that was said about Kaman and Lopez. Hell, Lopez dominated his second year at Stanford, and scouts still took shots at him for being bigger than everyboy he played against. It's just something that comes with the territory when you're a 7 footer.

 

[rbk88]

Oden and Koufos were alot more productive as well...that could have been a reason they played more as freshmen.

I just look at Mullens like another Deandre Jordan w/ less rebounding. He isn't a horrible option at 16 but he doesn't strike me as the type of player the Bulls have had success with in the past. He has more red flags than just about every other player projected in the top 20 right now.

 

[JimmyBulls]

Koufos: 27.1 mpg, 14.4 ppg, 11.8 fga, 50.8%, 6.7 rpg, 0.5 apg 1.8 bpg

Mullens: 20.3 mpg, 8.8 ppg, 5.7 fga, 63.8%, 4.7 rpg, 0.3 apg, 1.1 bpg

Mullens got a raw deal, there is just no two ways about it.

 

[rbk88]

So you are saying it isn't possible that Koufos played 7 more minutes per game because he wasn't as lazy as Mullens? I also would like to know why William Buford was able to earn a spot in the starting 5 as a freshman this year...as well as players before him like Turner and Conley?

 

[rbk88]

Also...have you really stopped and thought about how pathetic 4.7 rpg is in 20 minutes for someone 7'1(who plays exclusively near the basket) going against college competition? Guys like Durant,Beasley,Iguodala,Marvin Williams,and Melo were able to rebound pretty easily in college despite being much smaller than Mullens. The last thing the Bulls need right now is a Curry or Bargnani like rebounder. We were last among the 16 playoff teams in defensive rebounding.

 

[JimmyBulls]

Pretty much 9 and 5 is very good production for a guy that played 20 minutes. NTM, the kid shot a insane 63.8 percent from the field. How in the world could the kid be lazy with such solid production? It's crazy, guys expect a kid to average 20 and 10 in 20 minutes of basketball... and we're not talking about twenty minutes running time where a player can develop a good flow either.

It wasn't about no one else but Mullens. Buford wasn't projected to go top 5 in mocks. Buford didn't have nowhere near the buzz as Mullens. So it's not fair or honest to act as if their situations were similiar.

If you want to see a freshman had a lackluster first year at the college level... just look at Evan Turner's numbers: 27.1 mpg, 8.5 ppg, 6.3 fga, 47%, 33.3 3p%, 4.4 rpg, 1.3 spg. You can easily make the case that Turner's freshman year was a notch below Koufos or Mullens. I don't think anybody would pass on ET if he was available at 16.

Here is the numbers of the guy that platooned with Mullens, Dallas Lauderdale: 21.5 mpg, 4.7 ppg, 2.6 fga, 71.8%, 3.6 rpg, 2.0 bpg. You just don't platoon one of the top recruits in the country for a poor mans Shelden Williams.

 

[JimmyBulls]

If Beasley, Durant, Iggy, Melo, or Williams was available at 16, I would want the Bulls to jump all over them.

Brook Lopez average 6.0 rpg with 25 minutes of playing time as a freshman, was he lazy or not motivated as well? It's a pretty hard jump for a lot of centers to go from high school to college. But I don't think Lopez had to guard out to the perimeter like Mullens.

I don't think Mullens will be a great rebounder at the NBA level, but I don't think it's a stretch to think he could average 8.0 to 8.5 boards per game after a year or two of development.

 

[Simeon2UC]

dougthonus wrote:

I wouldn't be surprise if guys like Derozen fell to 15. I'm not sure what will happen but Byron Mullens is a guy that you have to pick, being this draft is so low in depth and talent. I was surprise to hear Mullens was taller than Brook Lopez which is saying a lot because they almost have the same skill-set. I remember last year guys were dissing Brook and saying he was garbage. They thought the Lopez brothers was another case of the Collins brothers. Last year, I thought we were going to pick 9th, my prospects were Brook Lopez and Deandre Jordan.

I think Mullens is probably pretty similar to Jordan. A guy who is all measurables without a lot of results to back them up yet. Lopez had a really nice college career, and people questioned him because he was too mechanical and not athletic enough. With Mullens that's not the case. He's got the smoothness and body, just not the results which is more similar to Jordan or McGee.

Back to Mullens, if you compare him against Lamarcus Aldridge, whom he replicates a lot coming into the draft, you'll see a increase in talent and physical attributes according to DraftExpress measurement database. Mullens is 6' 11.75 with a high no step vertical and bench presses a solid amount, though, he feels his measurement in bench press didn't project well due to lack of weight training.

I don't see how Mullens is like Aldridge. Aldridge was a number one option type on his team and had an extraordinarily refined game. He shot tons of turn around jumpers and played in the low post and mid post using a lot of different skills and finesse moves to score.

Mullens basically does one dribble-step dunks and layups for his scores. He doesn't have any of the refinement yet. If he had Aldridge's skills in his body, then he'd be the #1 player in the draft by far. Aldridge was also a great defender in college, something Mullens definitely was not though I think he was okay.

If you look at the database, the only talent players ahead of him is overall physical attributes were Shaq, Dikembe, and Zydrunas. I can at least see Mullens as the more agile Zydrunas whom both have the mid-range jumper.

I don't know if Mullens had a mid range jumper in HS, but he hasn't shown one at all in college.

Other guys I'm taking close notes on are Tyler Smith and Lester Hudson. Love both of them guys, Smith has a Josh Howard type game and Hudson is just a physical combo Guard like Rodney Stuckey. Jeff Pendergraph can also provide that missing piece in the front-court. He reminds me of a young PJ Brown.

I haven't seen any of those guys, but I want to look at Pendergraph, his measurables combined with his production seem to make him a really solid prospect, but he's ranked really low for a guy with his size + athleticism + production which makes me wonder why?

No, I was making the comparison that both Lamarcus and Byron had a misconception coming out of college. I feel Mullens is the most overlooked player coming into the NBA. I think he has more skills than Deandre Jordan and more natural feel for the game. I think people will overlook him, like they did Ariza and Lamarcus during their draft seasons. It's no reason why I think Mullens will fell in the NBA. It's no reason why the Bulls should pass on him for Hansbrough, Williams, or Johnson. The guy was projected to be the first pick last season. Let me reiterate, his feel, athleticism, and mid-range shot looks processed when you put him in the class of Kaman, Stoudemire, and Al Jefferson. This guy has the most refined skills and timing than anybody in this draft. Byron looks like a natural. As opposed to Hansbrough, whom looks raw and resembles a person that's having some sort of seizure while attempting shots around the basket. Kwame Brown didn't have his skill-set when he was drafted one.

 

[Simeon2UC]

JimmyBulls wrote:

That's why Henderson is most likely going lottery, it's because of upside. They think if Henderson can work on his shot, he could develop into more of a Sprewell. But I have a hard time seeing this guy becoming a good shooter.

Green's ceiling is clearly lower, but his shooting and defense would make him a steal at 26.

You get a +1 on this, I agree, definitely.

 

[Simeon2UC]

rbk88 wrote:

JimmyBulls wrote:

Mullens, Lopez and Kaman were very similiar as freshmen. The only difference has to be Mullens had a stupid coach who platooned him with a inferior player in Dallas Luaderdale. Mullens probably would've had a better freshman season than Lopez if he got the time and touches that he should have gotten.

A lot of people seem to forget that the things that's being said about Mullens is very close to what was said about Lopez after his freshman season.

I've heard some people say that Matta brought Mullens off the bench because he didn't want to lose him to the NBA after one year...but I am leaning towards the theory that Mullens just didn't work hard enough in practice to earn the starting job. I have a hard time seeing the Bulls picking him at 16 him given their tendency to go for guys from winning programs with strong work ethics.

Lopez also had a far superior jumpshot than Mullens BTW.

You all have to remember, Byron Mullens was having financial problems and his possession of money can rejuvenate him. You also have to remember, John Paxson picked Tyrus Thomas over Aldridge whom had a better background, so Byron Mullens is not a long ways from discussion. Tyrus Thomas came out of nowhere and was chosen by our staff. I had no idea whom Tyrus was. Last, a lot of people doubted Lopez and said he was soft. They also said he wasn't athletic enough. Which I think is B.S., if you look at him run up and down the court at Stanford, you'd swear he was light on his feet. I never seen someone with Lopez lateral and end-to-end speed. Most big guys like Bynum or Jefferson don't have that twinkle feet effect, it almost look as if they hurt while sprinting. I think Vinny can get the most out of Mullens.

 

[Simeon2UC]

jsain360 wrote:

If the Bulls take Mullens, they really need to hire a big man's coach, during the season Pete Myers was coaching the big men, if any one seen Pete play, knows he shouldn't be allowed to teach post play. Gar and VDN get a big man's caoch, Derrick Coleman needs a job, Terry Cummings is out there, Shawn Kemp, anybody but Pete Myers working with the big men

+10, this is common sense but I wonder why they haven't taken this approach. I was hoping we could hire Hakeem the Dream shaker.

 

[Simeon2UC]

JimmyBulls wrote:

Koufos: 27.1 mpg, 14.4 ppg, 11.8 fga, 50.8%, 6.7 rpg, 0.5 apg 1.8 bpg

Mullens: 20.3 mpg, 8.8 ppg, 5.7 fga, 63.8%, 4.7 rpg, 0.3 apg, 1.1 bpg

Mullens got a raw deal, there is just no two ways about it.

Mullens is a different type player than Koufos. I wouldn't compare the two. Mullens is more physical and more agile. Koufos don't have Mullens intangibles. He's a typical European player.

 

[Manic Devourer]

JimmyBulls wrote:

If Beasley, Durant, Iggy, Melo, or Williams was available at 16, I would want the Bulls to jump all over them.

Brook Lopez average 6.0 rpg with 25 minutes of playing time as a freshman, was he lazy or not motivated as well? It's a pretty hard jump for a lot of centers to go from high school to college. But I don't think Lopez had to guard out to the perimeter like Mullens.

I don't think Mullens will be a great rebounder at the NBA level, but I don't think it's a stretch to think he could average 8.0 to 8.5 boards per game after a year or two of development.

That's what was said about Eddy Curry.

 

[Manic Devourer]

 

[JimmyBulls]

^^^^ Gotta love Desmond Mason!

 

[Shakes]

My hope would be to trade the picks. We don't need two more players on the roster (especially if we do end up re-signing Gordon). Our roster is also not really yet solidly built enough around Rose to know who would be good eventual fits.

I think we have to look at where we want to get to. We have Rose who we assume is our star, so from that point you have to look to either find another star (and once you know who that is, find the role players that fit). Failing getting the second star, as many very good complimentary players as you can is feasible too, as we've seen teams have some success with that model this playoffs (although it looks like Kobe/Gasol will prove the superiority of the two star model if you can manage it!)

Using 16 and 26 in this draft are low percentage moves at trying to get a star, or even a very good player. So I'd draft for trade assets rather than need, which usually means players who can at least show a bit straight away (no projects!) if we're forced to use the picks. But I think I'd rather try to package them for a future first or something than draft anything in this draft, as picks are just plain easier to trade.

I really can't see us becoming a really top team unless we can pull off a prospects/picks/expiring for good player type trade somewhere along the line. So we should be making all our moves towards enabling that.

(Although thinking about it, the Magic buck the trend and show the alternative of trying through free agency is possible, although historically horribly low percentage).